[governance] Google to Censor Blogposts

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

It minimizes it at any rate.  And who was that judge who said "I know porn when I see it" in a famous obscenity trial?

--srs (iPad)

> On 26-Feb-2015, at 23:31, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I may be being dense here but I don't see how a blanket ban (including
> banning by categories) removes subjectivity since the subjectivity would
> come in equally in determining whether a specific instance was or was not
> subject to the blanket ban unless there is some mechanical way for
> introducing and enforcing the blanket ban in which case adjudicating
> disputes on marginal cases would again introduce a degree of subjectivity,
> no?
> 
> M
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
> Sent: February 24, 2015 6:51 PM
> To: Barry Shein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Cc: Michael Gurstein
> Subject: Re: [governance] Google to Censor Blogposts
> 
> Not here. They don't censor specific content and only limit categories of
> content. It still doesn't stop people from uploading it but they do have a
> policy basis for taking down any objectionable content going forward. I
> guess this removes the subjectivity and need for editorial control as to
> whether a nude picture was solicited or taken by a voyeur with a long lens
> through an open bedroom window.
> 
> 
> 
>> On February 25, 2015 8:07:42 AM Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>>> Given that they are the ones stuck with policing all the nude content 
>>> and s= eparating the drunk nude selfie bloggers from the upskirt 
>>> voyeurs / revenge=  porn site operators / child abuse perpetrators 
>>> from the scholarly discussa= nts of the precise way to achieve the 
>>> flexibility necessary to perform sex = acts described in the 
>>> kamasutra ...=20
>>> 
>>> I can understand their blanket ban, though I don't necessarily condone
> it.
>> 
>> Whatever happened to the theory that if you act as the censor then you 
>> can be held responsible for the content (e.g., failure to perform 
>> liability when some kid gets porn this way anyhow)?
>> 
>> Did that have no legal basis? Is there any case trail?
>> 
>> --
>>        -Barry Shein
>> 
>> The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           |
> http://www.TheWorld.com
>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR,
> Canada
>> Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t